Class Struggle

OFFICIAL ORGAN OF THE COMMUNIST LEAGUE OF STRUGGLE
(Adhering to the International Left Opposition)Volume 2 Number 10-11
November-December 1932

Table of Contents:
I The Presidential Elections—Vera Buch
II The Spanish Kornilovs and the Spanish Stalinists—Leon Trotsky
III. Letters from Germany (Concluded)
IV. The Spanish Revolution at the Cross Roads--Albert Weisbord
V. Snapshots from Europe
VI. Within the Communist Movement

********************************************************

The Presidential Elections by Vera Buch

The Democratic landslide certainly indicates a big victory for the ruling
class of this country, with the two-party system unshaken. But let no rashly
pessimistic conclusions be drawn from these results. What is necessary
is to make a most careful analysis of the vote and of all forces driving
to it. Above all, the Communists must strive through these election returns
to get their fingers upon the pulse of the working class, to be sure just
what are its mood. and its tempo at this stage of the crisis.

Why the heavy defeat of Hoover? (Keep in mind however that the electoral
vote is not the popular vote: 15 million people after all, found America
tolerable enough even under the crisis to want to keep Hoover in the White
House). The reason is not so much the crisis alone but the policy of the
administration during the crisis. The unending bluff (a temporary disturbance,
not a deep-going crisis, the chicken in the pot, prosperity around the
corner, public works, our great achievements, etc, etc.). The unmitigated
hard-boiled conservatism. Not one crumb for the masses, not one single
cent, literally, for the unemployed. Open unblushing support of the bankers,
the big corporations. Open bolstering up of industry at the cruel expense
of the working class. And lastly—let us not underestimate its importance
-- the brutal affront given the unemployed by the breaking up of the bonus
march. In short, a brazenly open bosses government.

But why the big Roosevelt vote? Here we must admit the disillusionment
is not yet with the bourgeois rule, not yet with the “system”, neither
is it Roosevelt’s lukewarm program with its half-promises of social insurance,
of economy, of Federal relief, etc., which won the votes, but rather the
old swing of the pendulum which can still be relied upon to take care of
the discontent of the masses. How much longer it can be relied upon is
another question. Our opinion is by the time another presidential election
rolls around, there will matured other forms of expression for the revolt
of which the crisis is now sowing the seeds.

The S.P. vote, making all allowances for wide-spread fraud, (which even
the Republicans had to contend with in Democratic controlled districts)
and for its exclusion from the ballot in some sections, was still a comparatively
small vote. It was still some hundreds of thousands behind the high point
of the Debs vote in 1920. We can readily see why the S.P. should increase
its vote over the last election. The unprecedented support given Thomas
through the press, radio, etc. (very interesting indeed, the S.P. is now
accepted as one of the family, and the capitalists can laugh in their sleeves
at the discontent which is turned off into this safe channel), the energetic
campaign the party made, the radical-sounding platform, with these favorable
circumstances the S.P, vote is easily explained. We must really ask, “Why
was the S.P. vote so small?” Combines with the above advantages, the distress
of the farmers and the blows dealt the middle class generally, with schoolteachers
unpaid, doctors and dentists without patients, storekeepers and little
business men out of business, why did not more people vote for Thomas and
Maurer? It is out of the question to suppose the masses know the S.P. for
what it is, a middle-class capitalist reform party and that they fail to
flock to it in great numbers because they realize it will not fundamentally
change the situation. For the comparatively small vote of the S.P. we have
two explanations. First, the still surviving confidence in the old parties,
and second, the inadequacy today, in the face of the blind alley the system
is in, of a mere parliamentary program unaccompanied by leadership of the
masses in concrete struggle for their immediate objectives, especially
on behalf of the unemployed.

No third party of any size, outside of the S.P. entered the field. The
liberal group headed by Dewey was obliged out of sheer ineptness to support
the S.P. Liberalism as the philosophy of the rising bourgeoisie was a driving.
force in the world in the 19th century. In America today it is an anachronism,
without a class base. The only class it might appeal to, the middle class,
is itself too hard pressed by the crisis, ground to pieces as it is between
the trusts on the one hand and the threat of pauperization on the other,
to be swayed by the passive impartial liberal program. The capitalists
themselves are up against a stiff fight on the economic field. Politically
this in their period of unyielding conservatism. Tomorrow they will face
the alternative that is confronting Europe today, of Fascism or Communism.

A few tiny labor groups here and there chiefly under the influence of
the Muste forces were able to put forward independent local candidates
as the Independent Labor Party of the West Virginia miners, to Seattle
Unemployed Citizens Union, etc. We must take into account however, the
probable deepening of the crisis which is ahead of us. The bourgeoisie
may be forced into a few social reforms such as unemployment insurance.
This will be but a feeble straw to stem the rising flood of discontent.
It is possible then the masses will turn to working class action through
the channel of a Labor Party (in the English sense). Two other factors,
however, must be considered, first, the world situation which offers possibilities
of either a world war (China, Germany,) or a new proletarian revolution
(Germany) or both, any of which contingencies would change the relation
of forces here. Second, the course of development which the Communist movement
will take is a prime factor upon which hinges either the progress of the
working class upon a revolutionary path or its shunting off and thwarting
in a party of reformism.

What of the Communist votes in the past elections? In the face of the
unheard of misery of the third year of the crisis, the small vote of the
C.P. can only be called shameful. We make every allowance for the well-known
checks upon democracy which affect the Communist vote in any election (disfranchisement
of the Negroes, of the foreign-born, of the youth, residence qualifications,
pauper laws, fraud, etc.) We might triple the vote of the C.P and it would
still be small in the face of the unprecedented exposure of the capitalist
system which has taken place. The hunger and cold of possibly 20 million
unemployed and their families, the desperation of the miners, of the textile
workers, the pauper-like level of the Southern workers, the poverty of
the Negroes, the wage-cuts and torture of speed-up and long hours to which
the employed are subjected, the terrible general lowering of the standard
of living for all the toiling masses, these are things which provide the
most fertile soil for the growth of the Communist movement. But we must
know that economic conditions alone do not make Communists. Becoming a
communist or a supporter of the communist program is a matter of the head,
not of the belly. We cannot however simply blame the poor campaign the
Party made. The campaign was mechanical, as usual, and made little impression.
But most of’ all it is the failure in action of the party which counts
for its failure to win the working class vote. The right-wing unemployment
work consisting of cut-and-dried demonstrations signature collection and
marches, devoid of real action and above all without a base of an organization
of the unemployed, the isolation of the TUUL due to the distortion of the
united front, the bureaucratic methods within the party, the irresponsibility
in mass work, abandonment of fields of struggle (North Carolina, Illinois,
Passaic, etc.) the clown-like leadership hanging on the word of Stalin,
the general decline in influence of the C.I. itself with which the poor
condition of the masses in the Soviet Union has something to do, these
things are the basis for the party’s failure.

To conclude, it is clear there is not yet radicalization of the American
masses (page Browder and his 1930 thesis with its revolutionary upsurge
and the Cannon group with “deep-going radicalization” in 1929.) There are
great potentialities of radicalization as we stated in our theses of April
1931. Their development depends to a great extent upon the correct work
of the C.P. and this in turn hinges upon the victory of the Left Opposition
without which the prospect for the Communist movement is not bright.

************************************************

The Spanish “Kornilovs” and “Stalinists”by Leon Trotsky

As usual Pravda is silent on Germany. But to make up for this, on Sept.
9th it has put in an article on Spain. The article is instructive in the
highest degree. It is true, it throws only an indirect light on the Spanish
Revolution. But on the other hand it illumines brightly the political convulsions
of the Stalinist bureaucracy.

The article says, “After the defeat of the general strike of January,
the Trotskyists (here follow insulting rituals—L.T.) assert that the
revolution was defeated and that the period of repulses had come.” Is this
correct? If there were revolutionists in Spain who were preparing to bury
the revolution in January of that year, such people neither have nor can
have anything in common with the Left Opposition. A revolutionist can recognize
the revolutionary period as closed only when the objective signs leave
no room for doubt. Only despicable impressionists and not Bolshevik-Leninists
can make pessimistic prognoses on the basis of a lukewarmness of the state
of mind.

In our pamphlet “The Spanish Revolution in Danger” we have examined
the problem of the line of general development of the Spanish Revolution
and its possible rythms. The Russian Revolution of 1917 took 8 months to
reach its culminating point. But this delay is not all compulsory for the
Spanish Revolution. The great French Revolution gave the power to the Jacobin
only at the end of 4 years. One of the causes for the slow development
of the French Revolution lay in the fact that the Jacobin party itself
was formed only under the fire of events. These same conditions exist in
Spain: at the moment of the Republican Revolution the Communist Party was
still in swaddling clothes. It is for this as well as other reasons that
we thought it likely the Spanish Revolution would develop through a whole
series of stages, including the parliamentary Stage.

We recalled at that time that the orbit of the revolution admit of ups
and downs. The art of leadership consists among other things in not ordering
the offensive at the moment of ebb-tide and not retreating at the flood.
For this it is necessary above all not to identify the fluctuations of
the particular “conjuncture” of the revolution with its fundamental orbit.

With the defeat of the general strike of January, it was evident that
we had to deal with a partial retreat of the revolution in Spain. Only
chatterboxes and adventurers can fail to take account of the ebb. But to
speak of the liquidation of the revolution in relation to a partial abatement,
can be done only by cowards and deserters. Revolutionists are the last
to leave the field of battle. Anyone who wants to bury the revolution alive
deserves to get the firing squad himself.

The subsiding and partial lull of the Spanish revolution has given an
impulse to the counter-revolution. Such dramatic changes are notices in
every revolution. After the defeat in a great battle the masses retreat
and settle down. The leadership, not tempered enough, is often inclined
to exaggerate the extent of the defeat. All this gives courage to the extreme
wing of the counter-revolution. Such is the political mechanism of the
monarchist attempt of General Sanjurjo. But it is especially the intervention
on the scene of the peoples most mortal enemy that awakens the masses like
the crack of a whip. It is not rare for the revolutionary leadership to
be taken unawares in such an unexpected case.

“The rapidity and ease of the liquidation of the general’s revolt”,
writes Pravda, “Show that the strength of the revolution is not broken.
The revolutionary ascendancy has received a new impulse in the events of
the 10th of August.” This is perfectly correct, In fact it is the only
correct passage in the whole article.

Was the official Spanish Communist party surprised by the unexpected
events? We are obliged to reply affirmatively, relying only on the proof
in the Pravda. The article is entitled “The Workers Conquer the General".
Evidently, without revolutionary intervention of the workers against the
monarchist Coup d’etat they would have been obliged to send not Sunjurjo
but Zamora into exile. In other words the workers at the cost of their
heroism and their blood, have helped the republican bourgeoisie to retain
power in its hands. Pravda, apparently unaware of this, writes: “The C.P.
conducted its struggle ….against the right wing coup d’etat in such a
way that it did not give even a shadow of support to the present counter-revolutionary
government.” What the official C.P. is heading for is a special problem.
At present it is a question only of the results of its efforts. The wing
of monarchist landowners tried to dispossess the republican wing, although
the republicans were careful in general not to dispute with the monarchists.
But the proletariat steps upon the scene. “The workers defeat the General.” The monarchists go into exile, the republican bourgeoisie remains in power.
How can be claimed, in the face of such facts, that the C.P. has given
"a shadow of support to the present counter-revolutionary government"?

From what has been said, does it follow that the C.P. should wash its
hands of the fight between the monarchists and the republican bourgeoisie?
Such a policy would have been suicide, as the experience of the Bulgarian
centrists showed in 1923. But the Spanish workers, intervening in a decisive
struggle against the monarchists, could avoid giving momentary help to
their enemy, the republican bourgeoisie in only one case: that is, if they
had been strong enough to seize power themselves. In Aug. 1917 the Bolsheviks
were much stronger than the Spanish communists in Aug. 1932. But the Bolsheviks
themselves had no chance of taking power independently in the struggle
against Kornilov. Thanks to the victory of the workers over the Kornilovians
the Kerensky government lasted another two months. We will recall once
more that battalions of Bolshevik sailors guarded Kerensky’s Winter Palace
against Kornilov.

The Spanish proletariat showed itself strong enough to defeat the general’s
revolt, but too weak to take power itself, under such conditions the heroic
struggle of the workers could not help strengthening the republican government
if only temporarily. Only nit-wits who substitute set phrases for the analysis
of events are capable of denying this.

The misfortune of the Stalinist bureaucracy is that it does not see
--- in Spain as in Germany—the real contradictions which exist in the
enemy camp, that is the living classes and their struggle. The “fascist” Primo de Riveira is replaced by the “fascist” Zamora allied with the “social-fascists".
It is not astonishing that with such a theory the intervention of the masses
in the conflict between the monarchists and republicans should have taken
the Stalinists by Surprise. Following their correct instinct, the masses
threw themselves into the struggle, drawing the communists along with them.
After the workers victory over the generals, Pravda began to collect the
debris of its theory, so as to stick the pieces together again as though
nothing had happened. This is what is really the meaning behind the stupid
bluster according to which the C.P. it seems did not give “a shadow of
support” to the bourgeois government.

But in reality, the C.P. has not merely given an objective support to
the government, but as we see by the article itself, has not been able
to differentiate itself subjectively from it. In this connection, we read
"We have not succeeded in showing sufficiently the true face of the C.P.
in all the units of the party as well as in all the organizations of the
province and in opposing it to the manoevres of the social-fascists and
republicans, thus demonstrating that the party fights not only against
the monarchists but also against the republican government which covers
the monarchy". By all the Stalinist literature we know well enough that
the words “not in all the units,” …not in all the organizations"….etc…
mean upon occasion. It is to conceal the cowardice of their thought. When
on Feb, 15th 1928 Stalin first recognized that the Kulak was not an invention
of the Left Opposition, he wrote in Pravda: “In some sections”, in certain
princes” the Kulak has arisen. As the faults are due only to those who
carry out the line, evidently they can only arise “in some places". So
the party is only equal to the sum of the provincial groups.

In reality the quotation we have just given, stripped of its bureaucratic
tricks, means: In its struggle against the monarchists the party has not
been able “to show its face". It has not known how to oppose itself to
the social-fascists and the republicans. In other words, the party has
not only given temporary military support to the bourgeois and social-democratic
government but has not been able to strengthen itself at their expense
in the unfolding of the struggle.

The weakness of the Spanish C.P., which is the result of the policy
of the epigones of the C.P. did not permit the proletariat to seize the
power in Aug. 10th, 1932. At the same time the party was obliged to take
part and did take part in the struggle as the left wing of the temporary
general front, at the right wing of which was found the republican bourgeoisie.
The leading coalition has not forgotten to show its “face”, holding back
the struggle, curbing the masses, and at once, after the victory over the
generals, it passed to the struggle against the communists. As far as the
Spanish Stalinists go, according to the testimony of the Russian Stalinists
they have not been able to demonstrate that “the party fights not only
against the monarchists but also against the republican government".

That is the crux of the question. On the eve of the events the party
was blackening the faces of all the enemies with the same soot. At the
peak of the struggle, it daubed itself with the color of the enemy, temporarily
gone astray in the republican social-democratic front. No one can be surprised
at this except some one who did not understand until now the origin of
bureaucratic centrism, In theory (if it is permissible to use that word
here) it ensures itself against bureaucratic deviations by the very fact
that in general it refuses to make any political or class differentiation.
Hoover, Papen, Vandervelde, Gandhi, Rakovsky, all are “counter-revolutionists”,” Fascists”, “agents of imperialism". But each abrupt change of events, each
new peril in practice forces the Stalinists to enter in struggle against
one enemy, to get on their knees before the other “counter-revolutionists” and “fascists".

In the face of the war danger the Stalinists vote in Amsterdam for diplomatic,
prudent, spineless resolution of General Von Schoenaich, the French free-masons
and the Hindu bourgeoisie. Patel, for whom Gandhi represents the height
of the ideal. In the German Reichstag the communists suddenly declare they
are ready to vote for the “social-fascist” president in order not to permit
a national-fascist president that is, they stand completely on the ground
of the “lesser evil". In Spain the Stalinists show themselves at the time
of danger to be incapable of opposing the republican bourgeoisie. Isn’t
it clear that here we have not to do with occasional mistakes, with “particular” units, but with the organic vice of bureaucratic centrism?

The intervention of the working masses in the conflict of the two camps
of exploiters gave the Spanish revolution a real thrust forward. The Azana
government finds itself compelled to decree the confiscation of’ the land
of the Spanish lords, a step it was as far away from a few weeks ago as
from the Milky Way. If the C.P. had pointed out the differences between
the real classes and their political grouping. If it had foreseen the real
march of events, if it had criticized and exposed its enemies on the basis
of their real sins and crimes, then the masses would have seen in the new
agrarian reform of the Azana government the result of the C.P. policy and
would have thought: We must go forward more energetically under its leadership.

If the C.P. entered surely and decisively upon the road of the united
front to which the whole situation calls it, and criticized the social-democrats,
not for their fascism but for their weakness, their fluctuations, their
cowardice, in the struggle against bonapartism and fascism, then the masses
would have learned in the common struggle and by criticisms would place
themselves decisively behind the C.P.

In the face of the actual policy of the C.I. the masses are convinced
at each new turn of events, not only that the enemies and class adversaries
do not do what the communists had predicted, but that the C.P. itself turns
at the decisive moment away from all it had taught. This is why confidence
in the C.P, is not being strengthened. And it is why in part the danger
arises that Azana mitigated agrarian reforms may only profit the bourgeoisie
and not the proletariat.

With favorable, exceptional and fortunate conditions the working class
can conquer even with a poor leadership. But these particularly favorable
conditions are rarely met with. The proletariat must learn to conquer in
less favorable circumstances. Moreover the leadership of the Stalinist
bureaucracy as the experience of every country proves, and as the experience
of each new month confirms, hinders communism, from utilizing favorable
circumstances from strengthening its ranks and maneuvering actively, from
finding its way about among the enemy and half-enemy groupings, and the
allied forces. In other words the Stalinist bureaucracy has become the
most important internal hindrance on the road of victory of the proletarian
revolution.

Prinkipo, Sept. 20, 1932. L.T.

*************************************************

Letters from Germany (Concluded)

(Editors Note: This is last of the letters written by Comrade Weisbord
in June and July. For the first four letters see Vol II number 8 issue
of Class Struggle, September, 1932).

The German situation heavily concentrates within itself in a classic
manner all the Marxian laws of Revolution. We can note the following salient
points:

1. No country is more ripe for Communism than Germany. It is the European
country par excellence of heavy large-scale industry welded into monopolies
and trusts and fused with the State itself. We have already pointed out
the enormous growth of State Capitalism, Public property, in Germany. In
the old days the “orthodox” Marxists used to declare that the Revolution
would take place first in those countries most highly developed capitalistically.
Certainly Germany fills this test. And together with this capitalist development
has grown a great and well organized working class.

If we ask why did not the Revolution break out in the most highly developed
capitalist countries (say U.S.A. or England) , we can answer with Lenin
that other factors must be present, viz., the willingness and ability of
the proletariat to fight to the finish. It is the law of unequal development
of capitalism that resulted precisely in this that the U.S.A. and England
being both victorious imperialist countries, were able to bribe decisive
sections of the proletariat and to throttle all revolutionary action.

However, it is precisely in Germany where the masses and even the labor
aristocrats are bribed least of all. For of all the great industrial and
imperialist countries before the war, Germany alone came out defeated and
crushed. And it is Germany alone that cannot for long bribe sections of
its industrial proletariat as could England and America.

In short, here we have a classic Marxian combination: All economic and
objective forces are ripe for the revolution together with a proletariat,
the majority of the population whose education is high and whose terribly
low standards of living and whose misery is bitterly apparent to all. Add
to this a crisis more acute than anywhere else in the industrial world.
Why then, we can ask, have we no revolution?

2. The second unique fact of the German situation is the complete and
thorough bankruptcy of the Socialist Party in Germany. Actually the Socialists
took power after the war. A Socialist President, Ebert, was elected. Why
was there no Socialism inaugurated? In Germany, more than elsewhere, the
Socialist Party became exposed as the agent of the counter-revolution,
protecting capitalism. The victory of Ebert was not the victory of an immature
Revolution which could only overthrow the Kaiser and the Junkers, but could
not overthrow capitalism. No, as Comrade Trotsky has pointed out, it was
the victory of an incomplete counter-revolution, strong enough to shoot
down the workers and murder their leaders, but not strong enough to restore
the Junkers, or even an open bourgeois party to power all at once, that
resulted in Germany.

However, this counter-revolution, whose first victory was the election
of Ebert the Socialist, has been maturing and step by step the Social-democratic
parties have prepared the way practically as well as theoretically for
this growth of counter-revolution. A steady back-sliding of “socialism” has taken place.

At first when Ebert shot down the masses and helped to murder Leibknecht
and Luxemburg, Social-Democracy gave the reason that Socialism would surely
come through the ballot and that it was necessary to go slowly through
the ballot so as not to dislocate anything. Kautsky was actually put on
a commission to “study” the question of “workers control". Socialism ,
it was promised, was actually “here".

The next step was to liquidate the factory councils as revolutionary
bodies. The most that the Social-Democratic parties declared that it was
possible to obtain at the moment, was a measure of social reforms. With
the election of Hindenburg, 1925, these social reforms became less and
less. The Socialist Party then took the next step backward, from advocating
aggressive social reforms, the Socialist Party was content to “defend” the social reforms that had been already secured.

The third step backward was for the Socialist Party to give up one by
one all the social reforms that the workers had actually secured in the
course of their struggles. This process was greatly accelerated by the
economic depression and the growth of Fascism.

The present year has seen the complete abandonment of even Social reforms
by the Socialist Party. Now the Socialist Party declares, it is fighting
only for the “Republic". The Republic has become the basic slogan and thus
the Social-Democracy turns to a plain “Democracy” and from “Socialism” turns to “Radicalism". The grand height of the Socialist betrayal of this
period was the vote for Hindenburg for President in 1932. Imagine, the
Socialist Party actually put forth no candidate of its own and urged all,
in the name of the Republic, to vote for Hindenburg. Could a more enormous,
abject, patent, betrayal ever have taken place?

But the Socialist Party can not even defend the “Republic". It can only,
Judas like, pave the road for the betrayal of the Republic. It is clear
to all that the vote for Hindenburg was NOT a vote for the Republic but
a vote for Von Papen and for a Bonapartism wiping out the Republic, kicking
out the Socialists themselves from their cushy government jobs, and preparing
the way for Fascism. The question we must now ask is, Why have the Socialists
still influence in Germany among decisive sections of the workingclass?

3. The third unique point is the fact that Fascism is arriving into
power via Bonapartism. In this connection we must stress the following:
First, the enormous growth of the Fascists, that is the turning of the
petty bourgeoisie to Reaction before the workers have attempted to seize
power and have failed in the attempt. In other countries it was only after
the country had been worked out by futile actions of the workers and the
workers themselves wearied that Fascism had arisen (Italy). Second, through
the Von Papen regime, a sort of Bonapartism is established before the class
forces are burned out in civil war. This means that the Von Papen regime
can not last long but only paves the way for Fascism. Hitler is right.
He does not have to “March on Berlin” for he is already “In Berlin"! Third,
a German Fascism itself does not provide a real leader, nor does the German
Bonapartism of Von Papen-Hindenburg. All of them, in one degree or another,
look to the Royalty, to the Hohenzollerns for leadership and prestige.

4. The fourth point that must be clarified is the relation between Von
Papen and Hitler. What are the inter-relationships between the two? It
is true there are antagonisms between them. Von Papen represents the Junker
element more while Hitler relies on heavy trustified industrial capital.
Nevertheless they are part of one class and Von Papen with his decrees
and ukases, his practical elimination of the Reichstag prepares the day
of plain Dictatorship just as Bruening with his temporary decrees prepared
the day for Von Papen. Besides, Von Papen has certain preliminary tasks
to perform which Hitler can not do for the German bourgeoisie. Not Hitler
could appear in Lausanne but only Von Papen. Not Hitler could have risked
his popularity with “Hunger Decrees” but only Von Papen. Not Hitler could
have suppressed Socialist and Communist papers without an open struggle
but only Von Papen. In this respect Von Papen is the Buchanan of Germany.

What is behind the differences between Von Papen and Hitler? The first
question is: What share will Royalism play? With the Von Papen regime the
Royalty and the Junkers will play a most important direct leading part.
On the other hand, the Nazi movement is the attempt on the part of Big
Business to set up a concern strictly its own and to take the political
leadership itself, even though with the aid and even the personal leadership
of the Kaiser. Connected with this struggle also is the struggle among
the separate groups of the ruling class as to what share they will get
of the results.

But far more important than this is the question of Civil War. It is
a question of who will start the attack and when? The German bourgeoisie
is carefully preparing its massacre of the Communists and workers. I refer
you to the brilliant work of Karl Marx, his “Class Struggles in France
1848-1851” where he describes how the rulers prepared the slaughter of
the June Days of 1848 in Paris. In this brochure Marx uncovers the strategy
of the bourgeoisie, he shows how the Bourgeoisie did not attack at once.
A provisional regime added to the Army and National Guard a “Mobile Guard” made up of slum elements. Marx shows how the government also tried to bribe
a section of the unemployed by paying them wages through “National Workshops".
Only when it was ready did the Government begin to provoke the workers
by forbidding public meetings, by throwing many out of the National Workshops
etc. In this way it stirred up the pretext which enabled it to bring in
the army and then to begin the shooting of the masses.

The German rulers are preparing even more carefully than the French
of 1848. They do not wish to begin before they are thoroughly prepared.
The whole question is Just when should they start and unleash the dogs
against the workers? Secondary questions consist of the problems: Shall
the Nazis provoke the workers and start the civil war before they are in
power or after they are in power; or shall the Von Papen regime itself
take on the task of provoking the workers so that it will be the workers
that will have to commence the action, upon which the heavy corps of the
Nazis will come into action. All these questions are questions of tactics,
but we must remember that civil war is an ART and tactics can decide the
whole fate of the civil war. It is differences on these questions that
have divided the ruling class sending some to Hindenburg, Hungenberg, and
Von Papen and some to Hitler.

5. Finally we turn to the Communist movement. The blunders of the Communist
International are as monumental as the crimes of the Socialist Party. The
German Communist Party has heaped blunders upon blunders. It is this that
accounts for the failure of the German Revolutions up to now; it is this
that accounts for the turning of the petty bourgeoisie to Fascism; it is
this that accounts for so many workers still remaining with Social-Democracy.
The theory of building Socialism in one Russia alone, the absolute neglect
of Germany, the program of “Peoples Revolution” “Against Versailles” “Freedom,
Work, and Bread” and the “Red Referendum” played right into the hands of
the Fascists. The theory of “Social-Fascism” that the Socialist is the
chief enemy and that no united fronts can be made with the Socialist organizations
and trade unions as such, these criminal policies have isolated the Communist
Party and coupled with its attacks against the International Left Opposition,
have rendered the Communist forces futile.

What are the probable perspectives? If I may venture one alternative
that seems the following is opened up: (Considering the German situation
alone, without international complications which of course can very well
arise).

The Nazis will take power through one way or another.
The civil war will start, especially if the Communists are on the job.
The proletariat will adopt the line of the Left Opposition against the
will of its leaders both Communist and Socialist and will form a real united
front in action.
This united front will begin to whip the Nazis and other reactionary forces.
France, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia will move in to shoot down the workers.
The masses in Russia will demand the line of the Left Opposition be carried
out, that the theory of Socialism in one Country be abandoned, that the
Red Army move in to aid the German Revolution at the decisive moment for
the embattled German Proletariat is the decisive section of the world proletariat.
And the final conflict will be on. We are moving towards a tremendous head-on
collision throughout the world.

**************************************************

The Spanish Revolution at the Crossroads—Albert Weisbord

Recent events have exposed the fact that the Spanish Revolution still
remains at the crossroads. It is still in its Kerensky Period, with a sort
of dual power manifesting itself. On the one hand, there are the workers
ever on the lookout, ever on guard to crush the enemies of the Republic;
but not organized in Soviets and having no adequate leadership and thus
incapable of seizing power for themselves. On the other hand, is the National
Cortes controlled by the bourgeoisie who would themselves prefer a more
stable regime even if it meant a return of the king. The Syndicates are
too weak to crush the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie is too weak to crush
the Syndicates (revolutionary unions).

This unstable equilibrium, though it has lasted over a year and a half
already, can not continue indefinitely. Either one or the other, wither
the workers will succeed in seizing power or all reactionary forces will
pool together to crush the proletariat and restore the monarchy if not
establish a regular Fascist dictatorship. The present unstable equilibrium
must come to an end either because of a shift of class forces within Spain
or by a shift in the international situation (say, Germany) or by a combination
of both. There is no question, for example, that should the Nazis crush
the communists in Germany, the Revolution (and the Republic) comes to an
end in Spain. While everything hangs in the balance, the proletariat in
Spain has shown its greatest strength when it is fighting a defensive fight,
against the Monarchists for example, and in doing the work which should
be done by the bourgeoisie but which the latter is too cowardly and weak
to do for itself. For example, take the last Monarchist attempt of General
Sanjurjo. Sanjurjo actually had the conspiratorial support of part of the
government and of the Civil Guard itself. It was not the bourgeoisie which
crushed this uprising, it was the savage action of the proletariat which
at once smashed to bits this reactionary movement, and although the government
saved the life of Sanjurjo from the wrath of the masses, even the government
was thrown for a loss and compelled to move to the left.

The Bourgeoisie, frightened at the power of the masses, exposed as a
weak, tiny minority, utterly incapable of dealing with the Monarchists,
or saving the Republic, indeed exposed as a group allied with the Monarchists,
were forced to make concessions to the revolutionary forces. The government
was forced to confiscate the property of the counter-revolutionists, deport
their leaders, promise a greater reform in the army and for the peasantry,
and actually granted a very liberal autonomy to Catalonia. All this marks
a clear step forward in the Spanish Revolution, the appreciation of which
step can be better seen in connection with the past periods of the Spanish
Revolution.

II

The first period, November 1929 to January 1930. This is a period prepared
by student riots, by the discontent of the bourgeoisie ground down by the
dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and by the economic crisis that affected
them on all sides. This period is marked by the first general strike in
November and December 1929. The workers here are supporting the students
and the bourgeoisie, they play no distinct role; they merely push the leaders
on to make the demand “Down with the King for a Republic” etc. The result
of this mass pressure is the fall of the Dictator Primo de Rivera January
1930.

Succeeding Primo de Rivera is General Berenguer. He attempts to trick
the people. He concedes that a National Cortes should be elected, that
the absolutism of the Spanish Royalty be ended. But he means to fool the
people, to have the National Cortes elected not by the masses but by the
municipal delegates who have already been elected and who represent not
the will of the people but the old Monarchist clique as before. The trick
fails. All parties decide to boycott the fake elections. Army revolts backed
up by Anarchist elements occur. The proletariat enters the fray. The Second
General Strike is called. It starts from a small economic strike called
in Madrid by the Socialists. It is seized upon by the Syndicalists and
made into a general political strike that crushes Berenguer who falls March
1931 giving way to a provisional government headed by the Right wing Bourgeois
Aznar. The King flees the country (aided by the bourgeoisie).

Real elections are then held. This marks the third period of the Revolution.
A unanimous vote is cast for a Republic in the municipal elections. A republic
is proclaimed April 14th, 1931. But the workers under the influence
of the revolutionary Syndicalists, wish to go further. They call a general
strike for April 15th It fails miserably, the Socialists fighting
it tooth and nail.

Up to this point the Spanish Revolution has followed classic lines.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the French Revolution of 1848 are the
models. There is this difference, among others, with the Russian Revolution:
There is no Bolshevik Party, the working class is thus weaker and the bourgeoisie
relatively stronger. The King is not executed but allowed to escape. The
Monarchists while driven to cover, still control the army and government
posts. Spontaneous Soviets are not set up. But we see the same phases in
the Spanish as in the Russian Revolution; the King is overthrown, the Miliukov-Gotchkov
regime is ended and the “Bulygin Duma” period of 1905 is quickly passed
through (Berenguer period). A provisional government is set up that represents
the Kerensky period of the Spanish Revolution. As in Russia so in Spain.
At first the Socialists take part. But when the Monarchy is overthrown,
the Socialists defend the capitalists and fight the general strikes. As
in Russia so in Spain, the theory of the Socialists is that since the capitalists
are too weak to establish their rule, the workers must help them to establish
capitalism, since capitalism must come before Socialism. As in Russia,
the Socialists of Spain refuse to take power and bring in Socialism.

As in the French Revolution of 1848, the Revolutionary masses first
demand a republic, then a republic with Social reforms. The ruling powers
too weak to stop the masses must grant certain reforms for a time. The
weak Louis Blancs (the Socialists) are taken into the government and flattered
(The Spanish Republic was actually called a “Workers Republic"!) but the
ruling class bides its time. It waits for its “June Days” to massacre the
toilers. If the “June Days” have not yet come around in Spain it speaks
volumes for the strength of the proletariat, the weakness of the bourgeoisie,
and the instability of the international situation: it bespeaks the fact
that we are in 1932 and not 1848. As the “June Days” period is delayed,
the workers grow bolder. They move from Social Reforms to Socialism, to
a demand on the part of the Communists that the workers seize power.

The elections of July 28, 1931, to the National Cortes showed the situation
clearly. The Right Wing reactionaries got but 41 delegates out of a total
of 470. The Radicals, Radical-Socialists and Socialists together got about
275 seats and forming a bloc took over the government, the Socialists taking
three cabinet seats (labor, public instruction, public works) and were
quite content to remain in a minority. But such a government can not crush
the revolutionary forces which mount steadily in this period.

The fourth period (to October 1931) of the Revolution sees the Revolution
move to the left. Many violent strikes break out all over the country.
A peasant movement is organized strong in Andalusia led by the agricultural
workers. The government is forced to confiscate the property of the King.
The Monasteries and church’s are attacked and the church and State separated.
The Jesuits are dissolved (but not banished, note). The separate government
of Catalonia is recognized and agrarian and military reforms promised.
A fourth general strike is attempted which is marked by a great deal of
violence. It is crushed.

This period is followed by another (October 1931 up to the time of the
Sanjurjo attempt). The movement seems set back. The trade union Syndicalist
movement, falls from one million members to less than half. The Socialists
grow. Insurrections in the Potassium mines and in the textile factories
of Catalonia are put down. In November a drastic Safety Law of the Republic
is put over. The fifth general strike (January 1932) is quickly put down
…………. the Tarrasa insurrection in March.

What can we say about these last two periods?

1. The Socialists openly take the role of shooting down the workers.

2. The workers “experiment” with the attempt to seize power. (Note the
similarity with the “July Days” of the Russian 1917 Revolution). They fail.
A more sober mood sets in. The difficulties have become more apparent.
The Syndicalist movement becomes split. The foolish putschist tactics of
the Anarcho-Syndicalists become thoroughly exposed. A “group of 30” headed
by Pestana, denounces the attempt to use the trade unions as revolutionary
organs. This group fights for a moderate policy and going further, really
fights against the revolution itself. The Syndicalists are split. It is
this split that provokes the Anarchists to really seize the factories (fourth
general strike). From that time the Anarcho-Syndicalists decline.

3. Refomism and liquidation tendencies grow. The Socialist Party, in
spite of its open treachery increases its influence due to the failure
of the revolutionary forces.

4. The Communist influence grows. The workers see not the trade unions
alone, not putschism but a strong political party deeply embedded in the
masses can succeed. A period of reflection and of study has set in.

The Reactionary forces mistook this period as one of defeat. They attempted
through General Sanjurjo to turn the defeat into a rout. They in turn were
routed. The Revolution enters into its sixth period with a decided swing
to the Left.

(to be continued)

************************************************

Snapshots from Europe

I
The Balkanization of Europe by Albert Weisbord

Anyone traveling through Europe today cannot but be impressed by the
fact that the Versailles Treaty, far from establishing an amity of nations
has only reproduced the Balkan situation on an enlarged scale. It is quite
correct to say that all Europe has become Balkanized. On the trip from
Hamburg to Istanbul one must pass through Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria,
Hungary, Jugo- Slavia, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. In each country there
are the same violent national antagonisms, the same search and questioning
of foreigners, the same high prohibitive tariff walls, the same swanking
officers and officious frontier functionaries. The countries resemble huge
armed prisons. Everywhere one sees soldiers, everywhere passports are carefully
scrutinized. Daily the war is fought over again.

Have you a visa? Then see whether it is only a transit visa and if it
is, then ask the police whether you can stop off to see the country or
whether you must stay on the train throughout. And ask the police whether
the same visa is good for the trip going through the country on the way
back. If not, be sure to get another visa. And if you stay a day be sure
to register with the police.

First there is the question of passports. They will be collected at
the border and returned hours later. They will be examined again when we
reach the capital and examined further when we reach the other frontier.
Then there is the matter of baggage and luggage inspection. I travel with
several Italians returning from Turkey to Italy. We enter Jugo-Slavia.
Woe to the Italians. Their luggage is turned inside out and strewn around.
Every piece is examined as though with a microscope. They are Italians!
Have you chocolate, you cigarettes, have you some bologna, have you anything
you brought in a country not your own? They, don’t you know, that each
country has its industries to be supported, its chocolate, cigarette, etc.
factories?

Finally there is the question of money. All your money is carefully
recorded. All money is confiscated which does not meet the legal requirements.
Here one feels the acuteness of the crisis, the completeness of the isolation
of the various nations, an isolation intensified by the very interconnections
and interdependence of the nations each with the other.

It seems as though all normal intercourse has become a crime and each
country has walled itself around with a huge Chinese wall. Each country
strives for self-sufficiency; each country prepares for the dreadful day
when war will cut off all certain international commerce. Within each country
conversation is carefully guarded. It is not good to speak to much, nor
of politics. The pressure of the crisis and its political effects hangs
like a pall around us. What is going to happen? Everything seems to be
strictly under surveillance. We enter Nish (now Plevdiv) in Jugo-Slavia
near the Bulgarian border and we see Jugo-Slavian soldiers leading a Bulgarian
soldier away. We learn he is a deserter from the Bulgarian army who has
fled his prison camp only to enter into another.

Bulgaria, Turkey, Hungary, Austria, shorn of huge strips of territory
desperately bide their time. But it is not only these countries but the
central countries themselves which have turned into Balkans, Czecho-Slovakia
splits the German people as does the Danzig Corridor. Danzig, Poland, Lithuania,
East Prussia, Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, do they not represent
a new Balkan problem? The solution of the old Balkan problem has only given
us two Balkans.

If the matter has not yet come to a head it is because the old equilibrium
has not been established; because the French, with their continental hegemony
solidly support one set (Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Roumania) and there
is no counter-weight to oppose the might of France,—none save that
of Germany, which is only now arising, and that of Russia. The strengthening
of Germany can lead only to the re-establishment of that equilibrium which
must result in another war. The strengthening of Russia can lead only in
the direction of a Soviet United States of Europe.

II
Istanbul—The Europeanization of Turkey by Albert Weisbord

The Europeanization of Turkey is now a fact. The lattice-laced harem
windows have been opened; the old Arabic script forbidden, the old Turkish
costumes have vanished. A great step forward has been taken by the nation
since 1921, the time of the Revolution. Strange to say, this revolution
was not a “peoples revolution” in the same sense as the Russian revolution
of February 1917 or the German revolution of 1918. The fact was that the
old Sultanic skin simply rolled away and a new and more vigorous capitalist
leadership was able to take control. The nearness to proletarian Russia,
the defeat after the world war, and the Turko-Greek war all roused the
articulate sections of the merchants and capitalists from their apathy
and a great movement for Europeanization set in.

But Europeanization has meant also the growth of all the antagonisms
and contradictions inherent in capitalist development. The Turkish rulers
had to strive first of all to break the chains that had harnessed Turkey
to this or that imperialist power. The war with Greece marked a definite
mile-stone in this direction. With great ruthlessness over 100,000 Greeks
were driven out of Turkey. Now they can stay only in and around Istanbul.
On the other hand a similar number of Turks have been driven from Greece
and have been given the lands of the former Greek residents. The struggle
against Greece meant the struggle against superior European culture, but
this culture could be overcome only by adopting and surpassing it. This
the new Turkish rulers attempted to do.

The struggle against Greece meant also the struggle against the domination
of the merchant capitalist whose seat was Constantinople (now Istanbul).
The Turkish landlord caste could not overcome him. The new rulers must
now turn to industry. Only the industrialist can defeat the merchant. Hence
the strenuous effort to induce capital to build factories in Turkey. Hence
the great job at the Turkish-Russian and Turkish-Italian accords where
over $40,000,000 will be loaned to Turkey, on very liberal terms, for purposes
of industrialization. The capital has been moved to Angora. Each day sees
advances, a careful policy of Turkish Nationalism and Turkish Capitalism.

These very developments must prove to the Turkish people that their
revolution has not been permanently achieved. They are now Europeanized
but has that relieved them of their miseries? The streets of Istanbul are
now paved: the women act in an emancipated manner. Taxis, movies, radios,
exist, but all these innovations brought in from the rest of the world
only emphasize the struggle which is still ahead to really free Turkey.

The economic crisis exists in all its brutality in Istanbul. Prices
of many important articles have fallen as much as 89%. The taxes rise steadily.
A clerk tells me that he must pay 30% of his weekly wage to the government
as income tax. We enter a moving picture theater. It can hold from four
to five hundred people. Ten persons are there. We go to one of the most
important hotels. It is empty. We enter the most fashionable evening salon
where nightly great crowds used to gather. Only a very few people are sipping
their coffee. The musicians mournfully play to an empty hall. There are
plenty of people in the streets but very few in the stores.

And the situation in the countryside and among the workers is just as
bad, in fact worse. We see coal barges unloaded by hand, each man staggering
under a huge burden of coal carried on his back, for about fifty cents
a day. We see the peasantry barely existing, in spite of the very low standard
of living to which the masses have become accustomed. This condition cannot
endure too long. It is for this reason that the militaristic dictatorship
keeps an iron control and censorship over all Turkey and that the Army
receives special treatment and favor. Should the world economic crisis
continue, not only in Europe generally but in Turkey also the passions,
the hatred of the masses will burst asunder this iron control of the new
dictatorship. The people then will open up the jails where languish even
now many Communists, workers and peasants, and will attempt to carry forward
the revolution begun in 1921 and to make it permanent and enduring in the
manner of Russia.

III
Vienna—City of By-Gone Dreams by Albert Weisbord

“Es gibt nur ein Wien". There is only one Vienna. This is the song of
the Viennese. And true it is—but in more senses than are generally
understood.

Vienna remains the city of unexcelled beauty. The whole city is still
a monument: each building, each street, each section of the city has been
worked out with an eye to symmetry, to harmony, garden follows garden,
palace follows palace. Museums, wonderful church’s, statues surround one
everywhere. Here is Vienna of old, ancient seat of emperors for over 600
years, old frontier post of the Romans.

And the Viennese live in the past. Austria has shrunk to Vienna, and
Vienna has shrunk to the remnants of the past—to a shadow. The sole
industry is that of conserving traditions. The old churches, museums, gardens
and palaces need guardians. The people of Vienna have become the guardians
of the past. The living stream of history has moved past, leaving Vienna
only a pleasant lake,—for tourists.

But now there are not so many tourists. The splendid cuisine’s are still
there,—and they are as splendid as ever—with wonderfully well prepared
food and drink,—but all quite empty. The Kaiser is gone. And now the
tourists have gone. Feudalism has fallen; the Austrian-Hungarian Empire,
that former “Prison of peoples”, has burst asunder. And now capitalism
too is falling.

Yes, it is a sad world. And the Viennese burgher weeps, over the whipped
cream in his coffee, comfortably and gently. The difference between the
Austro-Germans and his harder brother from Berlin can well be illustrated
by the following story. A Viennese and a Berliner meet and recount conditions
in their respective countries. Says the Austrian to his brother German:
"How is it with you?” “Ah” answers the Berliner, “It is very serious, but
not hopeless. And with you? “ “Ah”, replies the southerner, “It is hopeless,
but not very serious.” This is the attitude of the burgher Austrian whose
sole production has been good consumption.

With the masses it is different. “Decent” poverty is not infrequent.
"Hard times” have brought Vienna to the verge of bankruptcy. Without any
independent source of livelihood, without great industries, Vienna stands
peculiarly helpless. Under the leadership of the Socialists, the Viennese
proletariat had been gradually lulled to sleep, ---- to take its place
as museum porter and statue duster and garden tender. This soporific influence
is gradually disappearing under the influence of the crisis. As in Germany,
Fascism stands before the gates. The Fascists seek to call back the shades
of yesteryear, ---- to call back the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, to bring
back to life the statues of the past.

The workers are beginning to realize that they cannot always remain
palace-caretakers. Helpless now, they await events from abroad, but when
these events come, when the storm that is so darkly brewing over Europe
bursts forth in all its fury, from the Austrian mountains as well will
come forth the echo’s of the thunder that will shake the world.

IV
Berlin

No one smiles in Berlin nowadays. Everyone seems tense as though grim
unexpected things could happen to him at any moment. The brown-shirted
Nazis swaggering through the swell portions of the city pushing every ill
dressed person aside, the worry and anxiety in the Jewish quarter where
the young Jews have organized a corps for self-defense, the groups of dark-jacketed
workmen that sullenly hug the streets, the shooting affrays that occur
every single day, these are but the superficial phenomena which show what
a fiery fever is burning within the body politic. It affects the children
as well. The children, too, in Germany, are strongly political. The class
struggle spares no one.

The shadow of the barricades falls everywhere. I went to the cemetery
where Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht lie buried. Theirs is no princely
tomb. Around them lie the bodies of others who fell in the same dark days
of 1919, behind them are mounds of nameless proletarians who also paid
with their lives for their boldness in fighting for a new day.

Above all the heap of dead the Communists have built a monument ---
a barricade. The barricade! No groaning, no wailing, no sentimentality.
The stern monumental barricade looks down upon us and symbolizing the shade
of Liebknecht and Luxemburg casts its shade upon us too. There is no escaping
the civil war.

But who wishes to escape the civil war? Freedom is the consciousness
of necessity. Above the barricade built by the German workers has been
placed a huge hammer and sickle, the symbol of future rule. Not only shadow
but light exists. A troop of children, Pioneers, are just leaving the grave.
They had dipped their Red Flag in respect. They had taken their manly oath:
vengeance on the tyrants, civil war to the end, the victory of our class.

The Germans have carried on the traditions of the French. There in Paris,
in the cemetery of Pere La Chaise can be seen the wall of the Communards
where the flower of the French proletariat made their last stand, fighting
to the end. The Gallic cock had announced the dawn. The first red rays
are already to be seen in the East. The murder of Liebknecht and the others
are not the death but the stirrings into life of the German masses warmed
by the rays of the Revolution.

What a mighty proletariat is the German and what colossal conflicts
are brewing there! It was my privilege to witness three gigantic demonstrations
in the Lustgarten. The first was that called by the Communists to protest
against the decrees of the Von Papen regime. It was a magnificent affair.
In every section of the city the workers gathered at the designated places.
We marched four abreast in perfect order. In front marched the strong men
of the illegal Red Front Fighters. Behind them came the musicians, then
followed the mass of workers, in the center the woman and children, in
the rear more Red Front Fighters. For who could tell when and where the
column would be attacked by the murderous Nazis?

Everything is held in readiness. The police search all persons in the
parade before it starts. Before and behind lumber huge trucks filled with
the despised “Schupos”, ostensibly to “prevent” trouble. The workers too
have prepared. Everywhere flags, signs, slogans, songs, cheers, the steady
heavy march of the iron battalions of the proletariat—and on the side
of the procession, the nurses, doctors, hospital men, “in case of emergency.”

But nowhere are the Nazis to be found on the streets. The parade in
each quarter is too enormous. Unlike the Americans, these workers have
been through the hell of war and of Revolution. They know how to fight
as the freshness and discipline of their ranks testify. All the Nazi locales
are closed. As the workers pass they shout “Nieder mit dem brune Morderpest".
There is no reply.

It is significant that the woman take matters even more seriously than
the men. As they clench their fists and shout “Nieder” they really MEAN
it. The “Hunger Decrees” are well doing their work. No one could look into
the eyes of these proletarian woman without becoming conscious that hunger
was being answered by Revolution! The men were a little less tense. One
saw them smile now and then. It was a sign that the Revolution was not
here AT THIS MOMENT, that time and events must first flow by a while.

The columns now began pouring into the Lustgarten facing the former
Kaisers Palace, from all sides. What a powerful scene! Everywhere Red,
red flags and the Hammer and Sickle. No one broke ranks. Each column took
its respective place. The bands stopped playing. The bugle sounded. The
Party speakers arose. Their speeches were short and to the point. The best
language, after all, was the demonstration itself. It was the sign manual
by which the proletariat declared that the advent of Hitler’s Nazis into
power meant Civil War. The demonstration dissolved as it had formed, in
a thoroughly organized disciplined manner.

Organization, discipline, solidarity, on these rocks, waves after waves
of Fascism and hysteria have dashed themselves in vain. These are the strong
points—and also the weak points—of the Germans. It is these characteristics
that help the Socialist Party as well to keep their influence over the
masses. That the Socialists are strong could be seen in the Socialist demonstration
that was held the very next day in the Lustgarten also.

The Socialist demonstration was just as large. If it did not have exactly
the same force and spirit, if it contained large numbers of white collar
workers, if it displayed the Red-Black-Gold flag of the Republic, yet,
on the other hand, here were the mass of disciplined German Trade Unions
represented and the Red Three-Arrowed banner of the “Eisene Front” mingled
with the Republican flag. The Socialists were not fighting for Socialism,
they were fighting for a Republic. Yellow Reformism had turned a shade
blacker and under the alchemy of its leaders, Social-Democracy had turned
into a still baser metal “Radicalism". Already masses of Communists were
beginning to understand the policy of L.D. Trotsky. Mixed in the Socialist
demonstration were out-and-out Communist organizations who by participating
wanted to demonstrate their “United Front".

Still one other demonstration was to take place—the Fascist demonstration
in celebration of their being legalized while the Communist Roto Front
was not. Here we had an entirely different demonstration. There was no
street parade in the quarters of the city. The proletariat would have torn
them to pieces. The workers had bravely marched and showed themselves.
Not so the fat-bellied grocer, the cowardly intellectual, the student youth,
the Herr professor, the bourgeois, the clergy, the Royalty. They came in
limousines, taxis, trolley-cars, trucks, in twos and threes, individually
like a drove of pigs going to the trough. Only in the fashionable Unter
Den Linden and in the Lustergarten itself were the uniforms of the Nazis
seen.

Here was the old Kaiserthum and the old Speiserthum, Royalty and knavery,
sheepery and piggery, monkey and tiger, prince and pimp, professor and
prostitute, student and slum, grocer and gambler, all herded in together
under the banner of “good luck” the black Swastika. This scum, this trash,
this hysterical mob, this frenzied high-class and low-class rabble, these
would-be black hundreds of 1932, a bitter lesson awaits them.

*******************************************************

Within the Communist Movement

I

The November 3rd issue of La Verite carries the item that
the foreign journals of the Italian Communist Party have just published
the expulsion of six comrades from the Communist Party of Italy which is
illegal, for differences of views with the Central Committee of the Italian
Party. In announcing their expulsion these papers actually gave the names
and Italian addresses of these comrades. This is a direct provocation for
the Fascist government to arrest or kill these comrades. On this new infamy
we reproduce the estimation of II Prometeo, the paper of the Italian Bordigist
group.

“The workers and militants who do not submit to the degeneration of
the program and Communist policy laid down by the center are directly given
to the police and to Fascism at the same time as the leading center hides
the decisions of the lower units of the party then they condemn the acts
of desertion in front of the enemy committed by the very elements who make
themselves the propagandists of the centrist policy.”

“The C.E. declares that the communique concerning the expulsion of Brighenti,
Barioni, Drago, Sansone, La Camera and Gilodi, is a direct act of police
provocation.”

II

The L’ Humanite of November 2nd announces sensational news
namely that Adame, Trilla, Bullejos and Vega, practically the entire central
leadership of the Spanish Communist Party have been expelled as traitors!
These four were the very pillars of Stalinism before and who would eat
Trotskyism alive. Overnight these heroes have become traitors and tomorrow
perhaps, like the French celor, they will be “stool-pigeons.” These are
the people to whom Stalin entrusts the job of fighting Trotskyism.

III

We are very glad to quote the decisions of the Chinese Left Opposition
in regard to the Chinese situation as given in their letter of May 20th,
1932. Says this letter “During the last three years the defensive struggles
of workers elements in China have not ceased, in spite of the period of
calm; sometimes they increase and sometimes they diminish. The disposition
among the workers of a will to fight continues even now in the question
of the anti-Japanese struggle and of participation in the armed battle.
It is a different question as to the struggle. The official party estimates
that the workers struggles are regularly increasing in the cities. According
to the party, at present we are passing through a period of revolutionary
upsurge. In the course of the struggle against the blind estimation of
the official party, some of our comrades fell into the opposite point of
view. They declare that at present the serious wounds borne by the preceding
revolution (1925-1927) are not yet healed, that is to say that the working
class in China has not yet regained confidence in itself. The present situation
easily distinguishes itself from that of 1928. One can not therefore make
the bad policy of the party responsible for the weakness of the struggle
on the part of the workers. Still more, they estimate that since the struggles
of the workers in the cities is still weak, since the roots of the old
methods are not torn up among the workers as a whole, the question of the
execution of the problem of the conquest of power is not realizable.

That is why they say, in the present period, it is necessary for us
to lead only a defensive struggle and to adjourn the struggle for power
to the future, that is to say, after the economic regeneration of China.
The present proletariat in China is not capable of executing this task
(conquest of power) and it is why the economic regeneration becomes a period
which must precede the third Chinese revolution.

We (the C.E. of the Bureau of the Opposition) estimate that the point
of view that we have just reported is liquidationist. We think that the
present situation particular to China is characterized as follows: The
process of development of the national liberation struggle continues. The
peasants who have received nothing from the agrarian decrees can not re-enter
into a reactionary path. The source is the national struggle in the cities
is not exhausted, although the workers movement has still not increased.
But the situation at present does not resemble that of 1928 (the day after
the great defeat of 1927). Our task is the following: to strive to direct
the struggle of the workers, from the defensive struggle, to pass to the
offensive, to re-unite the national liberation struggle to the agrarian
struggle in order to prepare the transition on the road to the third revolution.
As to the movement of the peasants which actually the official party studies,
we estimate: we must support it, make great efforts to reinforce the poor
peasants and the leadership of the party in the soviet territories under
control of the “red army”, to work at all costs for the liaison of the
struggle in the city and the country. Some of our comrades reject completely
the objective of the peasant war in the present period. In this question
also they have passed directly to the opposite pole, that of the erroneous
policy of the official party according to which the creation of soviet
power depends exclusively in the peasant forces.”

Here we see that the line of the Communist League of Struggle has been
completely confirmed by the letter of the Chinese Opposition.

IV

Within the past few weeks the Communist League of Struggle has made
several steps forward. A very well attended series of lectures has been
given in the Labor Temple (average attendance over 100) and several successful
affairs. (especially the November 5th celebration) held in the
headquarters. Three classes have been organized with a good attendance.
Especially noteworthy is our activity in Perth Amboy.

Recently a meeting was held “Three Weeks with Leon Trotsky” in Perth
Amboy. The whole Party unit and sympathizers turned out to hear Comrade
Weisbord. The meeting was very successful. The Party members even applauded
at the end. They declared they had never understood the line of the Left
Opposition before. They urged us to come again. It is quite possible that
a good group can be organized there.

A good deal of propaganda was made to help our German Comrades of the
Left Opposition. Recently a collection was taken and ten dollars sent to
aid the Permanente Revolution. We know that this sum will be much appreciated
over there. We hope it will be only the first of a series of donations
by our group.